I thank the committee for the opportunity to make this presentation. I want to make some brief comments about the RIAI, consumer protection, minimum standards, the EU context, how the system will operate and its cost. The RIAI was founded in 1839. Since then it has had a major involvement in education and standards. In 1985, the architects directive was introduced and that set the minimum standards for the formation of architects across the EU. Since 1972 the RIAI has had a professional practice examination. It requires a five-year, full-time course in architecture, a minimum of two years' postgraduate experience, completion of analysis of a building project, a course of 15 days of lectures and a written and oral examination. That is the standard. Mr. Montaut has spoken about strategic review of the construction industry, which recommended that the titles of architect and surveyor be registered and that the RIAI and the Society of Chartered Surveyors, respectively, be the registration bodies.
There should be consultation with those who do not have the qualifications. In the context of the forum for the construction industry, there was considerable consultation with four bodies representing those who did not have qualifications. These were the Architecture and Surveying Institute, the Group of Independent Architects of Ireland, the Incorporated Association of Architects and Surveyors and the Irish Architect Society. That led to an agreement, which was forwarded to the Government and is included in our submission in appendix 2. The agreement with bodies representing those who did not have qualifications is similar to that in the Act.
The Competition Authority has been mentioned. The Competition Authority recommended a separate and independent body but also said that if the State, by legislation, decided RIAI and SCS should be the registration bodies there should be a majority of non-professionals on the key committees of admissions and conduct. That is included in the Act and is independent. The Building Control Bill was published in 2005 and in May 2009, the Minister appointed the non-professionals to the technical assessment board and this enabled the register to be launched in November.
The Building Control Act marks a key shift in widening access to the profession by introducing access to those who have not pursued the standard higher education route. There is a registered admission examination and technical assessment. Up to 1966, entry to the architecture profession could be gained through the RIAI examination system but there has been a general shift towards formal qualifications. The pendulum has swung back to some degree with the shift to an outcomes-based assessment in higher education and away from the input model. The Building Control Act has both models, input from qualifications and output based on the assessment obtained without formal education.
There are many reasons a demonstration of the minimum standards is essential but consumer protection is the main reason. Having a standard means consumers can be assured that any person using the title "architect" has demonstrated a specific level of knowledge, skill and competence and can be judged against that standard if problems occur. A defined standard ensures those subject to the code of conduct and investigation by the statutory professional conduct committee have demonstrated they have attained a level of knowledge, skill and competence and one can reasonably expect them to follow the code. One might ask whether this is really a problem. The reality is that most members of the public believe the title "architect" is protected and means a person has formal qualifications. As late as October 2009, a Red C poll showed that less than one fifth of those surveyed knew the title was not protected and that the word "architect" did not refer to qualifications. There is a significant consumer information gap in this area. Members may recall the issue with Mr. David Grant, where the title "architect" was used. He misrepresented the possibility of being granted planning permission in this State and consumers lost thousands of euro. He moved to the UK, was stopped from using the title legally and has been fined.
Regarding the EU context, the professional qualifications directive is a minimum standard and in the directive seven sectoral professions benefit from automatic right to registration — architects, dentists, doctors, midwives, nurses, pharmacists and veterinarians. Automatic rights means that if one has the necessary qualifications, one cannot be prevented from establishing. These sectoral professions are listed on the basis of significant public interest and public health implications of their work. The directive lists relevant qualifications of architects in the 27 member states in Article 46, which is included in the submission to the committee at appendix 3. These are the minimum standards that underpin all standards across Europe. It is important that any standard for the registration of architects is aligned with European minimum standards. If persons are admitted to the register who do not meet the standards, the qualifications of all architects in this State who might seek to migrate or provide services in Europe will be questioned. The failure to require minimum EU standards has the potential to undermine regulation of occupations in this State.
Have other countries done this or is it an entirely new idea? In the 1990s, the Netherlands moved from no regulation to regulation of architects. It carried out an assessment process successfully and the system used is similar to that in the Building Control Act. It is successful and has not been challenged. Systems such as this can be challenged by member states and the Commission.
How will it work? It is portfolio based, with ten years experience and at least four projects. A separate panel of architects will assess this and give an opinion to the independent statutory technical assessment board. The board can accept, reject or carry out further interviews and ask for additional information. There is an internal appeals board and appeals to the court. There is a belief that there was a grandfather clause in the Building Control Act and that it was dropped during the debate on the Bill. An amendment was introduced only to the definitions section, where practical training experience was to be replaced by a reference to the grandfather clause. Ultimately, the then Minister, Deputy Dick Roche, did not accept the amendment. At no time was the system of assessment changed or modified.
My submission provides a range of examples with regard to the timescale for technical assessment of architects with qualifications and EU graduates. The time it takes to process an application from someone with automatic qualifications and the technical assessment are about the same. There is no great difficulty. To date, there are 2,850 architects on the register. There is a choice of being an RIAI member and going on the register or going on the register alone. Some 150 architects have been admitted to the register after the launch and 20 to 30 are coming each month. So far one architect has opted not to join the RIAI.
The question of cost has been raised, which is understandable. The costs put forward by the RIAI are based on a pilot scheme carried out to assess actual costs. This is not theoretical. The Minister must approve the costs, a process that is under way. The committee will appreciate that I cannot submit all the material provided to the Minister but my submission provides a breakdown of the full cost of technical assessment. Already, we are €500 over the budget we suggested. The direct cost to the RIAI of the pilot scheme was over €73,000, with an income of €39,000. Some €4,000 should have been charged per applicant. Taking in the layers of administration, members can see where this figure comes from. The RIAI's position on costs is open to change. If someone can show that these figures are incorrect, they will be reduced. If it is found that we can work at a lower rate, or that the costs are excessive, that will be done. I have also provided information on benchmarking, which is important in making comparisons. An OECD report on the recognition of prior learning has been completed in Ireland. It identified the cost of an exemption from the standard third level module, usually involving five credits at between €1,000 and €1,500. An architecture course has a minimum of 300 credits in the five-year course. The LIONRA project is funded by the Higher Education Authority and identified a cost of €6,000 per application in one module of the course. I have also given examples of the cost of full-time education in architecture, the Bologna process and postgraduate courses. I have also provided the charges in the UK of the Architects Registration Board for similar but less complex processes. In summary, we are saying these costs are comparable and will change if the evidence is there.
Everyone knows there is hardship in the field of architecture. The RIAI cannot pay for this process. The process was set up on the basis that it would be self-funding, paid for by architects. The OECD report makes a strong case for State support. The RIAI is prepared to put up some €50,000 as part of a solidarity fund, provided the states put up €100,000 or €200,000 more to deal with those who suffer genuine hardship.
The RIAI is the registration body with responsibility to the State, the European Commission, the public, consumers and architects and those applying for registration recognise its responsibilities. This is a period of change for those working in the field of architecture and those with lesser qualifications have understandable concerns. The system of technical assessment is not a new proposal but was formulated as early as 1999 and agreed with many other bodies. It was also in the Building Control Act 2007.
I have given members of the committee the example of the successful system in the Netherlands. So far, we have held six briefing sessions around the country, attended by over 200 potential applicants. We prepared standardised documentation, CV forms and verification forms to make it as easy as possible to make an application. I have a sample of successful applications which members are very welcome to examine. This shows that the application form is neither formidable nor excessive. There are no guarantees that everyone will be successful but this does not prevent a person offering architectural services in the future. However, they will not otherwise be able to use the title.
A balance has to be struck as between consumer protection, requirements for compliance with minimum EU standards and access to the register by having a fair, reasonable and open system of assessment for all. It is possible that, with the concerns being expressed, the real opportunities offered by the Building Control Act 2007 may not be appreciated. The Act would provide open transparent mechanisms for those who do not have listed qualifications. Rather than closing up the market, registration will open up the market at all levels of practice. It will provide one standard for architects in Ireland, access for those who do not have listed qualifications to perform as architects in the State sector, access to appointments as architects to State-funded building projects and access to the equivalent of a level 9 masters qualification which, for teaching, can be very useful in terms of income. It will also provide access to the EU market through automatic rights of recognition and to full professional recognition. With one minimum standard for all architects everybody is working in the same environment and competing at the same level.
Finally, the registration of architects has not been set up for the benefit of architects but for the benefit of the consumer and the quality of the built environment. It is not intended to exclude anybody but, rather, to include all those who meet a defined minimum standard. Registration, however, must not place the position of architects who need to migrate or provide services in the EU at risk by the admission of persons who have not been assessed to a defined EU minimum standard. There is a potential to undermine existing regulation systems and future systems. There have to be defined minimum standards of assessment to protect the consumer and the national and EU credibility of the register.
